Nigeria and the Global Innovation Index (2)

Have you managed to download the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2013? If not, here is the link again.

Full GII 2013 Report: The Global Innovation Index 2013 - WIPO

In the last post, we started to digest the GII 2013 report and its ramifications for Nigeria. We highlighted the main findings. Overall, it was clear Nigeria was at the bottom end of the global innovation scale, and this has been so since measurements began in 2007. (See last post).

In the GII 2007 report, eight (8) pillars underlay the Global Innovation Index. Of these, five (5) INPUT pillars represent aspects that enhance the capacity of a nation to generate ideas and leverage them for innovative products and services. These include i) Institutions and policies, ii) Human capacity, iii) Infrastructure, iv) Technological sophistication, and v) Business markets and capital. The other three (3) OUTPUT pillars define benefits of successful innovation to the citizens and organisations of the country. These include i) Knowledge, ii) Competitiveness, and iii) Wealth.

In the GII 2013 report, seven (7) pillars were used to determine each country’s Innovation Efficiency Ratio from which its Global Innovation Index, an average, is computed. These pillars include five (5) INNOVATION INPUT SUB-INDEX such as i) Institutions (sub-divided into Political, Regulatory and Business environments); ii) Human capital and research (sub-divided into Education, Tertiary education and Research & Development); iii) Infrastructure (sub-divided into ICT, General infrastructure and Ecological sustainability); iv) Market sophistication (sub-divided into Credit, Investment and Trade & competition); v) Business sophistication (sub-divided into Knowledge workers, Innovation linkages, and Knowledge absorption); and two (2) INNOVATION OUTPUT SUB-INDEX such as i) Knowledge and technology output (sub-divided into Knowledge creation, Knowledge impact and Knowledge diffusion); and ii) Creative outputs (sub-divided into Intangible assets, Creative goods and services, and Online creativity)

The simple relevance of these seven pillars is that they are all required to play contributory roles in forging the foundation on which a country can found a culture of innovation and innovativeness.

Now here is the more disheartening part, if Nigeria is appraised on the basis of each of the indicators which comprise the seven pillars on their own merit and by themselves then the situation with innovation and innovative culture in Nigeria would be better seen as truly precarious.

Over the course of a series, this blog hopes to analyse some of the pillars and their sub-divisions in detail, but for now let us take a brief look at the second pillar which is Human capital and research (sub-divided into Education, Tertiary education and Research & Development). This blog has all along called attention to without prejudice to the GII reports to the pertinence of education to creativity and innovation. Without the benefit of specialist knowledge in computational statistics, a cursory appraisal of this pillar on mere simple focus group can reveal much to even an amateur researcher.

Here are some guide questions we may ask. What is the grand vision and the long term thrust of the present education system in Nigeria? Does this system place value on the indicators which would support, propagate and enhance creativity and innovation? What role has the tertiary education system played in cultivating and enhancing national innovativeness, if any? How many credible and marketable ideas, concepts, inventions, and innovations has emanated from the Nigerian university system? What is the Research & Development (R&D) in the Nigerian appropriation bill / annual budget? How is the budget assigned to the relevant parties? What is the state of our national R&D institutions? What results have they to show for all the funding they have received over the years?   

From the above sample questions you can design your own simple questionnaire to get some firsthand information.

One day, this writer had the privilege of meeting and interacting with one of the few women professors in science and a notable member of the women in science association. She was about to present her Inaugural Lecture at the university in which she worked at the time. This writer asked her was what the value of all the various Inaugural Lectures coming from Nigerian universities when there were no commensurate outputs in terms of knowledge creation, inventions and innovations. She smiled wryly, sadly.

The picture with innovation in Nigeria is grim. And until there is a comprehensive review of the situation on ground and a deliberate attempt to rebuild from scratch for a better future then we would be deceiving ourselves.

Just as an aside, there was a recent report of a statement in the media attributed to a respected traditional ruler in which he encouraged parents to send their children to private universities instead of waiting on public universities due to the protracted Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) strike. This blog appreciates that the king was only offering counsel to people out of genuine concern for the effects of lecturers’ ongoing industrial action on the futures of the country’s future leaders. Yet this blog cannot but reason that the traditional ruler’s counsel is premised on the faulty assumption that private universities are preferable since their academic calendar scheduling and implementation appears more stable and subject to lesser disruption. Can academic calendar stability alone suffice?

Research is a cornerstone of tertiary education but particularly the university system (notably research oriented universities). How much groundbreaking research is emanating from our universities, polytechnics, monotechnics and research institutions combined? (The next post would show the correlation between education, research and innovation). Nigeria from available evidence shows very poorly on research of any kind. Even in the agricultural sector where there has been much hue and cry about the need for recourse to reviving the sector, to diversify the economy and to provide jobs – Nigeria is, lamentably, recording very pedestrian results.

Yet experts affirm the crucial roles tertiary institutions have to play in knowledge provision for the new global knowledge economy as well as enhanced creative outputs / innovation. "Research universities in low- and middle-income countries have crucial roles to play in developing differentiated and effective academic systems, and in making it possible for their countries to join the global knowledge society and compete in sophisticated knowledge economies," according to Philip G. Altbach, research professor and director of the Centre for International Higher Education at Boston College in the United States. (See University World News Issue No: 28 of August 11, 2013)

Then there is the question of functional and well organized innovation system. Does Nigeria have a functional and well organized innovation system? Most less developed countries do not. 

In the study based on assessments on Tanzania and El Salvador (both of which are not unlike Nigeria) entitled Building systems of innovation in less developed countries: The role of intermediate organizations, Astrid Szogs,  Andrew Cummings and Cristina Chaminade stated "In well functioning innovation systems both forms of interactive learning occur under a variety of agreements for mutual collaboration between firms and knowledge providers, leading to the acquisition of new knowledge and competences that can be applied to innovative practice. Broadly speaking the basic interactions in an innovation system are those taking place between a) user – producers, b) Multinationals (MNEs) – indigenous small and medium firms (SMEs), c) among SMEs and d) between universities and other public and private business and technical knowledge providers."

From experience in facilitating an aspiring entrepreneur training and training in business development for the last five years, this writer has discovered that on ground there is only a very tenuous linkage between knowledge providers and users in Nigeria. And as for the SMEs and the multinationals they depend mostly on foreign (imported) technology and copied specializations. SMEs in Nigeria are some of the weakest in the world based on their capacity to innovate.

All things considered, in the long term, private universities do not hold the solution to Nigeria’s educational quagmire, strikes or no strikes. The same goes for polytechnics and monotechnics. The earlier this is seen the better. Short term thinking should not denude the fact that government authorities at all levels had an irreplaceable role to play in political environment, policy support, national development design and national budgetary funding levels. No private university can rise above the larger social environment within which it operates. Even for those universities pretending to have foreign exchange programmes, expat lecturers and imported case studies. In some cases, these attractions actually they are practically irrelevant to their immediate constituencies! Certainly, private university education alone cannot make Nigeria a more innovative country.

Nigerian government must frontally address human capital development and take into cognizance the policy environment and provide adequate funding to education, tertiary education and research & development.

No results with mere lip service. Nigeria must be well positioned in order to IMAGINE, CREATE and INNOVATE.

PALAVER TREE COMMENTARY – The Knowledge Triangle

Welcome to our 4th PALAVER TREE COMMENTARY. This is written to complement and reinforce the last post.

After the posting PALAVER TREE COMMENTARY - Disadvantage of Rigid and Inflexible Curricula (Part 1 & 2), this writer saw the need to explain the premise within which the blog believes that education could play a more decisive and contributory role in CREATIVITY and INNOVATION within the cultural context of Nigeria.

This writer had earlier highlighted the need for the Nigerian education curricular to promoted creative thinking in pedagogy. (See commentary referred.)

Now this writer wants to advocate for Nigerian tertiary education system which engenders and intensifies the correlation between education, research and innovation. You see that is strong evidence that there is glaring disconnect between the outputs (if any at all) of the ivory towers (we are not pointing fingers here) and their immediate and wider environment. This is proven. This ought not to be so.

When this blog refers to tertiary education, we mean education at university, polytechnics, monotechnics and specialised research institutions. However the case study for this commentary is the university.

Historically modern universities as far back as the 18th century, universities published their own research journals and by the 19th century, the German and the French university models had arisen. The German, or Humboldtian model, was conceived by Wilhelm von Humboldt and based on Friedrich Schleiermacher’s liberal ideas pertaining to the importance of freedom, seminars, and laboratories in universities. The French university model involved strict discipline and control over every aspect of the university. Until the 19th century, religion played a significant role in university curriculum; however, the role of religion in research universities decreased in the 19th century, and by the end of the 19th century, the German university model had spread around the world. Universities concentrated on science in the 19th and 20th centuries and became increasingly accessible to the masses. In Britain, the move from Industrial Revolution to modernity saw the arrival of new civic universities with an emphasis on science and engineering, a movement initiated in 1960 by Sir Keith Murray (chairman of the University Grants Committee) and Sir Samuel Curran, with the formation of the University of Strathclyde. The British also established universities worldwide, and higher education became available to the masses not only in Europe.

According to the Magna Charta Universitatum which several universities in Europe have signed on, the number one fundamental principle of the university is:

The university is an autonomous institution at the heart of societies differently organised because of geography and historical heritage; it produces, examines, appraises and hands down culture by research and teaching.

To meet the needs of the world around it, its research must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power.

If you should go strictly by this principle, you can see the breach with Nigerian universities. Other tertiary institutions including the ones producing NCE holders are not faring better.

The following document was the outcome of a Peer Learning Activity (PLA) which held in Reykjavik, Iceland in 2008:

	Circling the Knowledge Triangle from the perspective of Education: the added value in better connecting Higher Education to Research and Innovation

This key policy conclusions paper results from a Peer Learning Activity which was hosted in Reykjavik 25-27 June 2008 by the Ministries of Education, Science and Culture of Iceland and the Ministry of Education of the Flemish Community of Belgium. The theme addressed by the PLA was concerned with the relationship between the three elements of the knowledge triangle:

The PLA addressed questions regarding the extent to which the relationship between the elements is bi-directional, with particular reference to the impact of research and innovation upon the education element.

The Knowledge Triangle

The Knowledge Triangle is a central theme of the Lisbon strategy, representing the integration of education, research and innovation working together as key drivers of the knowledge economy in delivering sustainable growth. The concept of ‘circling’ this triangle means improving the interconnectivity between these mutually reinforcing elements.

In discussions, PLA participants supported the usefulness of the knowledge triangle as a tool for describing and understanding the dynamics of education, research and innovation working together. Ample evidence was identified of how education is stimulating research, and of a bi-directional relationship between research and innovation; however, paths back from research, and particularly from innovation, into curriculum development and educational practice were much more difficult to trace. In practice, it would seem that the knowledge triangle is largely being implemented in a linear progression or continuum: education leading to research, which in turn fosters innovation.

It was emphasised that the different roles and interplay between education, research and innovation - and their respective weights - will vary depending upon national or regional circumstances, and that the knowledge triangle should not be perceived as a rigid structure. However, in all circumstances strengthening linkages between the three elements is crucial in ensuring the full benefits are secured from investment in any of the three. In this way, multiplier and (often unexpected) spinoff effects can be maximised.

The understanding of the specific role and potential of each of the three elements of the knowledge triangle was facilitated by dedicating one of the three working days to each theme in turn.

Education

In examining the role of education as part of the knowledge triangle, PLA participants stressed that education consists (at all levels) of more than just the activities of teaching and learning of specific subject matter. The wider societal role of universities in the development of rounded individuals was felt to be an aspect often overlooked but nonetheless important. Education, in the sense of fulfilment of individual potential, is an investment process (in human capital) which realises returns in enhanced standards of living and quality of life achieved through the conversion of knowledge, including in particular through creativity and innovation, into economic value.

Key points of debate and reflection included the following:

• Might increased specialisation of universities as ‘centres of excellence’ in particular fields be at the expense of being good broad teaching institutions? Can or should all universities be a centre of excellence in something?

• Could the massification of HE lead to a two-tier system, dividing education from research and innovation, and separating engineering technology and applied sciences from the humanities and social sciences

• A cultural change is needed: universities must stop thinking of themselves as apart from business. Most university students will go on to pursue careers in companies rather than in academia. Relationships with business can bring benefits to the university, its students and to the curriculum and should be two-way, (e.g. clearly both business and HEIs have a desire to produce employable graduates)

Several of the PLA participants reported significant changes in institutional architecture at national level (including changes in legislation) in the organisation of higher education to align with the Bologna process, to respond to the demands of the massification of higher education and to better link policies of higher education and enterprise.

Research

Traditionally, one of the major purposes of academic research has been to add to the body of knowledge and understanding in a particular domain. Increasingly, investment in research which can be commercially exploited, and in particular in engineering and the applied sciences, is also a key priority at institutional and national/regional levels.

The Lisbon strategy calls for higher levels of investment in research and development in the drive to make Europe ‘the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth’. The ‘Barcelona target’ of increasing research and development to 3% of GDP by 2010 was felt by PLA participants to be instrumental in driving higher levels of (public) investment in Research & Development (R&D).

Several PLA participants gave examples showing how this is reflected at a policy level in science and technology committees chaired by prime ministers, while on the European plane the new European Institute of Innovation and Technology describes itself as ‘the first European initiative to integrate fully the three sides of the Knowledge Triangle, aiming to stand out as a world-class innovation-orientated reference model, inspiring and driving change in existing education and research institutions.’

The scale of the task was illustrated by one PLA participant who referenced a recent survey which shows that over 80% of SMEs had no R&D relationship with the HE sector. Several PLA participants gave examples of how incentives are being used to stimulate business collaboration, technology transfer and growth in research which has the potential for commercialisation. In particular, financial incentivisation at both the institutional level and for individual professors was explored, including the question of who owns the results of research.

The role of individual professors is key: in the learning process through direct and sustained contact with students and by involvement in research either individually or collaboratively (including making contacts with business). Success or failure of bridging the role of academic and entrepreneur rests upon the shoulders of individual professors. Whilst some institutions do provide co-ordinated support (e.g. access to advice on patenting) this was felt to be the exception rather than the norm. However, ‘best practice’ would optimise the interplay between the professors and the support structures.

Innovation/business-related research most often measures its results in terms of registration of intellectual property – patents. Caution was expressed that this may result in perverse effects e.g. high numbers of patent applications which may not necessarily be an indicator of good research – or commercially viable innovations. Investment trends in the development of research with little or no immediate commercial application was less clear. Public investment in different typologies of research (and the return to the public purse) was debated.

Key questions raised in discussions on the theme of research include:

• What is the relative value of publications and patents? Are all patents, papers or citations of the same value/rewarded in the same way?

• Some research may have limited or no business potential but nonetheless be valuable in itself or as a pre-cursor to other work. How is it ensured that this type of research is not overlooked?

• How can buy-in from academics be secured? What kind of support is needed?

Innovation

In assessing how to evaluate the role of innovation in the knowledge triangle, PLA participants underlined that different avenues for innovation exist.

Innovation can be defined as the exploitation and application of knowledge, gained through research for use in a commercial sphere i.e. the commercialisation of research. However, this was felt to be too narrow a definition seeing knowledge only as a product – not enough attention has been paid to knowledge as an individual ability and the potential for pedagogical innovation and the promotion of innovation and entrepreneurship amongst students. There was a suggestion that innovation was an attribute innate in children, and the education process has tended to erase this.

We need more knowledge workers with an innovation mindset – PLA participant, Reykjavik

Innovation can, and should, also be seen in the adoption of new approaches in university administration and teaching practice, and links with industry can play a positive role in supporting this process. As one PLA speaker put it: ‘Innovation in everything except accounting’. Examples of university-enterprise co-operation were examined, including specific initiatives on technology transfer or working on joint projects, to more strategic and long-term partnerships, often with larger companies – such as the creation of innovation parks.

It was widely acknowledged, that it is difficult to trace a line back from innovation to education, and particularly how to bring the benefits of commercialisation of research back to the curriculum.

There were, however, examples presented where students were required to participate in innovation courses, and where students were likely to be ‘infected’ by a spirit of innovation.

Discussions on innovation raised the following questions which merit further consideration:

• In the implementation of the Knowledge Triangle, the focus is on knowledge as a product. However, the benefits of innovation far exceed the financial income which can be directly gained from the commercialisation of research. How can universities ensure that the full benefits of innovation (e.g. in curriculum design, in university management practice) are realised?

• Should universities be more proactive in the IPR field? And should universities rank (and prioritise) patents in terms of their commercial potential?

• To what extent does collaboration with businesses for the commercialisation of academic research lead to universities chasing short-term gains - at the expense of longer-term strategic direction

Circling the triangle – the added value for education – Conclusions

1.    The Knowledge Triangle is a useful tool for describing and understanding the dynamics of education, research and innovation working together in a mutually reinforcing way. There was broad agreement on the ingredients needed to connect the three areas of the knowledge triangle, but the recipe is not yet clear - what measure should they be used and how should these vary in light of national or regional circumstances.

2.    Strong and fruitful links were found between the three angles of the knowledge triangle, but in practice, the triangle is being implemented in a more linear progression (education-research-innovation). More practical connections which are bi- (or tri) directional need to be made. In particular, further effort to ensure that the benefits gained from innovation are fed back to education is needed. Where such links do exist they may be difficult to assess and measure.

3.    Renewed policy impetus, including the Barcelona 3% target, is focusing attention and effort. Already effects can be seen, most notably in the area of research. In choosing the priorities for public funding, national policy makers and HEIs must ensure that the long-term benefits of research (and the commercial exploitation of research) are fed back to education to ensure relevant and dynamic teaching and learning, and a multiplier effect of return on investment for the public purse.

4.    The role of individual professors is key: as teachers and facilitators of access to knowledge, sufficient support (and incentives) should be provided to enable them to fully assume this role.

5.    There remains a question about the value accorded to other HE fields – the humanities and the social sciences – where are they in the Knowledge Triangle?

End

Notes:

1. The Magna Charta Universitatum is a document to celebrate university traditions and encourage bonds amongst European universities, though it also serves as a universal inspiration and is open to universities throughout the world. It was proposed by the University of Bologna in 1986, and has been signed by 755 universities from 80 countries. The Magna Charta Universitatum Europaeum was formally signed by 430 university rectors on September 18, 1988 at Piazza Maggiore in Bologna, to commemorate the 900th anniversary of the founding of the University of Bologna. The final text of the document was drafted in January 1988 in Barcelona.

2. This Peer Learning Activity (PLA) was organised on 25th – 27th June 2008, in Reykjavik, Iceland, in response to the needs of participants in the Cluster on "Modernisation of Higher Education" within the framework of the implementation of Education & Training 2010. Nine countries participated in the PLA: Iceland and the Flemish Community of Belgium (co-hosts); Bulgaria; Finland; Hungary; Norway; Romania; Spain and Sweden.

Sources:

1. http://www.magna-charta.org/ Magna Charta Universitatum English document
2. Encyclopædia Britannica
3. Wikipedia
4. PLA_Circling the knowledge triangle_Key conclusions_June 08